Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE RIGHTS OF medical personnel to object to carrying out abortions must not interfere with the well-being of a patient, the Department of Health has said.
This week a member of the board of the Mater Hospital, Fr Kevin Doran, said that the hospital “can’t carry out abortions because it goes against our ethos”. He was echoed by fellow board member, and a nurse tutor at the hospital, Sr Eugene Nolan.
Sr Nolan said that the situation facing the hospital was “very, very grave”. The Mater is listed as one of 25 appropriate institutions named in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act where abortions may be carried out in order to save the lives of pregnant women.
‘No provision for institutional objection’
Yesterday, there was a suggestion that the Mater may be able to refuse to carry out a termination due a late removal of a line in the act that stated no institution could refuse to carry out a termination.
That, however was denied by a Department of Health spokesperson who spoke to TheJournal.ie today.
“The Act does not provide for conscientious objection by institutions.
“Section 17 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 clarifies that professional health personnel (medical and nursing personnel) with a conscientious objection will not be obliged to carry out or assist in carrying out lawful terminations of pregnancy, unless the risk to the life of the pregnant woman is immediate, i.e. in an emergency situation.
However, an individual’s right to conscientious objection is not absolute and must be balanced against the patient’s competing rights, particularly the right to life in the case of a medical emergency.
“In such cases where a doctor or other health professional has a conscientious objection to undertaking a required medical procedure, he or she will have a duty to ensure that another colleague takes over the care of the patient as per current medical ethics,” said the spokesperson.
“These provisions make it clear that this right is limited to persons involved in the delivery of the treatment only.”
Goes against their ethos to save the life of a woman? Give me strength. My blood is boiling
Erin its completely against their ethos to help women,
Fr Kevin Doran has previously objected to cancer treatment and tests for women on religious grounds
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/three-who-stopped-the-cancer-tests-25960150.html
In my view he’s a pathetic excuse for a human being,
It’s against their ethos to carry out abortions. Start there.
And where refusal to terminate results in a woman’s death, is that acceptable?
I believe there’s a case due before the courts on that issue.
@Barry:
He’s a misogynistic bastard!
The only person whose objection to a legal and medically necessary procedure that should be taken into account is the patient.
Spot on, only took us 30 years to get there, though.
We have to ask where do medical objections on religious grounds end though?
In this instance the catholic ethos could very easily end in the death of a women, how is this seen as acceptable by anybody?
What if…and bare with me for a moment, in the morning their ethos also included that it was gods will not to treat black people. So even they they receive tax payer funding they could decide not to treat black people because it was against their ethos.
Or what if they decided that they couldn’t acceptable blood from black people for blood transfusions,
This is nuts, they are in the Irish state as such they are required to obey the laws of this country.
Barry one good thing about the vitriol that you spew, is your hatred for anything to do with catholics is so pronounced, that everything you say is devalued. For the record, if the state tells me to kill anyone, I would refuse too. Fr Kevin’s a prominent philosopher, trained to think, something quite foreign to you.
Is he a trained doctor? Anything else is irrelevant to this discussion.
So you wish to exclude all professionally trained thinkers from such an important discussion.
Roll on the tyranny of relativism.
Paddy,
As you are well aware, many professionally trained thinkers (including philosophers) were invited to discuss the medical, legal and ethical issues surrounding the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill when it was being debated in the Oireachtas. The Bill is now an Act and is now the law of the land. I have the highest regard for philosophers, but they are not trained to deal with medical emergencies and life-threatening situations. So, unless Fr. Doran is a medical doctor, his opinion with regard to the performance of emergency medical procedures is not pertinent. Relevance, not relativism.
@Paddy:
You’re another misogynistic twerp!
@ Reality check
To self appoint oneself as THE reality check, how much more relativistic can one be.
From my perspective, and all I have is a perspective, the government ignored all the input of the professionals, and ploughed ahead with abortion as a treatment for suicidal ideation. I’m sure the courts will be revisited on this issue.
In the meantime those of us who value them both, will continue to do out best, even if the state sponsors the unjust targeting of the human in the womb.
Hi Paddy,
It is Reality Cheque, not Reality Check – perhaps the irony bypassed you, never mind. Until a certain point of viability, the life in the womb is dependent upon the life of the woman. There is no debate, “relativistic” or otherwise about, that.
Trained to think? The “Five Proofs”, mental reservation and casuistry. Hardy rigorous intellectualism… more on the vein of Monty Python’s Duck/Witch routine. I think you’ll find a degree of Boolean/Syllogistic “truth” in both these comedians material. But do keep trying.
My understanding is that a doctor cannot refuse to treat a person whos life is at risk i.e. they can refuse to carry out an abortion on a healthy woman (moot as that is not allowed under Irish law anyways) but are obliged to act if her life is at risk, whether they object or not.
I dont think any doctor would refuse to do it when a woman’s life is at risk
a doctor takes an oath to save life not take life for any reason
Jim, I am not sure where you are coming from. To which “taking” of life do you refer?
@Reality Cheque So the unborn in the womb is not life? Right…
@Mr Jingles, you have too much faith in humanity.
James,
I was referring to Jim’s assertion that doctor’s ‘save life not take life for any reason.’ The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act does not permit doctors to take a life for any reason. What is at issue here is the performing of an abortion procedure when a pregnant woman’s life is at stake. If her life is not saved, then two lives are lost.
As an aside, can a Jehovah’s Witness work as a doctor and then refuse to do blood transfusions as it is against their beliefs?
I have met a few nurses and midwives that are Jehovah’s Witness to the best of my knowledge they have if required given blood. Never met one who was a doctor.
They can’t receive transfusions but I’d be surprised if they would refuse to carry one out on a patient, particularly a non-Jehovah’s Witness, with blood from a hospital blood bank. I’m really shocked at the Mater’s stance on this.
Their belief is not to take blood or blood products themselves . Their belief does not involve withholding blood from non witnesses as far as I know . I think if you don’t believe it follow Jehovah’s witness faith you’re not going to heaven anyway as far as they are concerned .
No, I will not save this woman’s life. It is against my beliefs. Imagine, that foetus could be a boy!
Priests up to their old tricks again, have these people not ruined enough children’s lives without wanting to put women’s lives in danger too ?
same old thing all the time priest did thïs and that how many fg or labour people done sick things to children and adults
Why was it named on the list when the Health minister knew it was a Catholic Hospital?
Because most hospitals in this country have a catholic ethos. The Rotunda and The Adeleide were to the best of my knowledge the only two none catholic hospitals in Dublin.
“risk to the life of the pregnant woman is immediate, i.e. in an emergency situation”, there is always enough time to phone the Iona Institute to get legal clarification.
Irish nurses and doctors working in countries where terminations are carried out can exercise their individual right to not take part in care of women undergoing termination unless its an emergency.
Isn’t this the same thing? While some individuals will object hospitals have more than one doctor on duty in each speciality at any given time.
Silver Fern,
The problem in this case is that Fr. Doran of the Mater is reported to have said that is “incumbent on the hospital to consider its position on the Act . . . The Mater can’t carry out abortions because it goes against its ethos” (reported in the Irish Times 7/8/13). In this case it is not the individual physicians/nurses prerogative to exercise their own conscientious objection, but rather that any abortion procedure is against the ethos of the institution (ie the Mater hospital). Within this remit, even if a physician or nurse had no conscientious objection to performing an abortion to save the life of a woman, the ethos of the hospital prevents them from doing so.
To be honest with you if you required treatment for pregnancy do you not think you’d go to the Rotunda before the Mater?
It’s a bit of a mountain out of a molehill all hospitals have ethics committees who meet to discuss clinical issues they have the final say and they vote democratically.
It would have been sensible for Minister Reilly to have considered the position that the Mater might take on this before the list of institutions was made public. It’s too late for that now. Yes, all hospitals have ethics committees but this would appear to be a preemptive strike on Fr. Doran’s behalf. If the ethos of the hospital is that it cannot carry out abortions, then this would seem to render the ethics committee redundant.
I don’t know how much choice a woman needing a life saving abortion would have to be honest. I don’t think that has been made clear anywhere. However, if it has been deemed by three medical experts that she requires an abortion to save her life, then I do not see what role the role of the ethics committee would be in this situation.
True but realistically speaking these women would be under combined care with the obstetric team performing the termination therefore it makes sense they would be in a maternity hospital.
The ethics commitee would have to meet prior to a final decision never to carry a termination in that hospital. It’s one very vocal man making a point who’s to say his will be the final decision of the group?
Hi Silver Fern,
Yes one would hope that a woman finding herself in this situation would indeed be in a maternity hospital. However, Fr. Doran seemed to be suggesting that the ethos of the Mater hospital is already determined in this regard. If that is the case, can the ethics committee rule against such an ethos? Of that, I am not sure.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see. It’s not so long ago that nurses in this country weren’t allowed to care for women having tubal ligations and that their spouse or male next of kin signed their consent forms. Indeed some hospitals refused to carry out the surgery at all.
We have come a long way but we have a long way left to go.
True Silver Fern,
As you say we will have to wait and see. Progress is slow, but its progress nonetheless.
I think you may not be considering the full spectrum of life threatening conditions that may befall a woman. A woman may be primarily undergoing treatment in the Mater for a life threatening condition and find herself dealing with a pregnancy which requires termination. There is no requirement to engage a maternity hospital for a pregnancy which should not progress. The simplest thing is for the hospital treating her illness to also terminate the pregnancy, thus keeping all her treatment records with the same team.
Louise,
Yes, that is the problem and this is why Fr. Doran’s comments are worrying.
Silver Fern, not if you were brought into A&E in a voluntary hospital with an emergency miscarriage, as happened to me. Things could get very hairy then in the Mater. St Vincent’s, though it’s run by the Sisters of Charity, seems to have a different stance as evinced by their statment yesterday.
Doctors anywhere Irish or not can refuse to perform elective termination of pregnancy but are obliged to ensure appropriate referral to a doctor who will . That’s one of the reasons why despite it being legal technically
, terminations are rarely carried out in northern Ireland . The religious vein among staff doctors nurses alike makes it difficult to find a full team to be involved . If a woman was unwell and life was at risk there is no question and every effort made to save the mother life .
Miscarriage and termination are two different scenarios . I’m sorry for your loss but in miscarriage the pregnancy is self terminating . Despite their protestations the religious members of the board are naive if they genuinely think they can tell doctors what they can and cannot do in the interest if their patients . It’s not 1950 anymore .
‘Doctor’s right not absolute’. Which doctor would this be?
So basically they’ve made this law vague enough that people can basically cover their own asses!! Surprise surprise!!!
Ah now, you didn’t see that coming?
We have an Act that makes things worse, not better.
Pregnant women get sick just like everyone else, in some cases their pregnancy can be an added complication in the case for example of crash injuries or cancer. Sometimes abortion would aid treatment. In the old days the mother’s life or health was routinely sacrificed in favour of the foetus – the father might be consulted to make the choice. Read again the link about the cancer drug treatment trials to understand why religion shouldn’t dictate medical treatment, unless the choice is the patient’s.
Abort that priest.
No chance the spokesman is medically qualified?
Hm, everyone is saying saving a woman’s life. Not all abortion cases are life threatening? Some are just decisions in life that led them there. I know the case for abortion got heated up again due to the death of a woman at uchg, but now everyone is thinking anyone who wants an abortion is a terminally ill person. And to refuse them would lead to death.
If you carry on with a pregnancy, you deliver a child. Pregnant and wanting abortion doesn’t automatically make you knock on deaths door
hsianloon,
Yes, reasonable people do want to save a woman’s life. If a woman dies during pregnancy, not one lives are lost but two. The provision for abortion in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act is offered where there is a significant risk to the life of the mother. Therefore, all of your comments about non-life threatening abortions are irrelevant i.e. ‘If you carry on with pregnancy, you deliver a child’ is true if, and only if, the woman is still alive to do so.
But try to remember it would be a medical procedure where the images involved could cause severe emotional disturbance to the person carrying it out. All well and good to save a woman’s life but would you want the actual abortion images in your head, particularly if you had issues with the procedure in the first place? And yes I know the red thumbs will be out in force but medical professionals may well be faced with issues from here on that they never had before so not surprised they’re worrying. I reckon in the end, it’s not an issue we’ll probably ever hear of again.
Lisa,
I am sure that the medical practitioners involved in performing such a procedure will be reassured by the fact that they actually saved a woman’s life.
Perhaps they will, but I’m just saying that doesn’t mean the procedure won’t also have an effect on them. It’s all well and good people here commenting but for someone who actually has to do it, it’s a bit different. Doctors and nurses are people too and none of us can erase certain images from our heads or decide what effect they’ll have.
Lisa I’m sure no nurse/midwife/doctor will have to participate if they have an objection to the procedure. In the same manner as they don’t if they work abroad at the moment.
Lisa,
Yes, it is true that certain images can be traumatic and we cannot always know in advance what affect they might have on us. Which is why, in my opinion, some of the images branded about on placards whilst this legislation was being debated was reprehensible. Don’t forget, that a medical practitioner can decide to exercise their individual right of conscience and refuse to partake in an abortion procedure. Whilst, as it states in the above article, this right to conscience is not absolute, I would hope that every possible opportunity will be afforded to medical practitioners to exercise this right should they chose and nominate another practitioner to undertake the procedure. Having said that, exposure to traumatic visual scenes is an unfortunate consequence in many professions (the medical profession, the ambulance service, the fire brigade service to name a few obvious examples). Unfortunately this cannot be entirely avoided. We can only hope that individuals would be offered the support that they need should this happen.
Reality cheque,
How can you be sure about that? How can you be sure a pro life doctor wont feel like they just.murdered a life and potentially have a break down over it.
I certainly hope none of them would. But to say there is certainy in how someone else would react is rubbish.
Risteard,
Please see my second reply to Lisa. I took it for granted that we were all aware that a medical practitioner could exercise their right to conscientiously object to participating in an abortion procedure. Also, I did not mean to imply that I was “certain” about how anybody would react. If you read my comment again you will see that I said that people would be reassured by having saved a woman’s life. Perhaps “sure” was too strong a word to use, but I would think many people would be at least relieved that they had saved at least one life in a life-threatening situation where two lives are in danger.
@Lisa:
If they would be that upset, they’re in the wrong job.
Well no, in all jobs, new staff walk into the rules with their eyes open, whereas existing staff don’t necessarily have to accept them if they weren’t the terms when they started. This is all new to them and some didnt have this issue before them when they embarked on a medical career in Ireland.
Lisa,
We have constantly been told, by certain sides in this debate, that pregnant women in a life-threatening emergency situation have been dealt with efficiently in our national hospitals. This legislation simply puts a legal structure on what has already been, apparently, standard medical practice, So, I do not suppose that there will much new to the existing medical staff as a result of this legislation.
Well let’s hope not reality. But I’m just saying no one should end up hauled over the coals over it either. I think it’s an argument over issues that probably won’t happen to be honest
Hi Lisa,
I sincerely hope that any medical practitioner who has a genuine conscientious objection to participating in an abortion procedure is given every opportunity to opt out. Such a person’s right to conscientious objection is enshrined in law, rightly so, in my opinion. However, I also hope that any woman whose life is threatened with a medical emergency whilst she is pregnant is saved and provided with the necessary medical care that she needs. Hopefully common sense will prevail and, as you say, such issues will be a non-issue.
Why would a pregnant woman be in the Mater Hospital to begin with? Surely medically necessary abortions will be done in one of the maternity hospitals? And surely if a woman needed an abortion because of suicide they would hardly want to be sent to a Catholic Hospital and would just elect to go to a different hospital. So remove the Mater hospital from the list of 25 and there won’t be a problem.
See my comment above, not that simple.
Gynae cancer in pregnancy . Mater is a gynae oncology surgery site . Vincent’s and tallaght also have a gynae service . It’s not just maternity hospitals that look after pregnant women .
have your say